Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #79927
| Date | 2014-10-29 10:46 -0700 |
|---|---|
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
| Subject | Re: optional types |
| References | <99399d4a-902d-42d9-86c8-7bdcd2a766cc@googlegroups.com> <mailman.15302.1414601774.18130.python-list@python.org> <18fa60be-225e-422d-82de-902c4a0c66da@googlegroups.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.15304.1414604765.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 10/29/2014 10:18 AM, Kiuhnm wrote: > On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 5:57:13 PM UTC+1, Peter Otten wrote: >> Kiuhnm wrote: >> >>> I must say that the lack of static types in Python is a pain in the neck >>> especially when I'm exploring new libraries. Recently, I learned a new >>> language called Dart which have optional typing and I had a lot of fun >>> with it. Basically, you use type annotations as documentation and to give >>> useful information to the IDE or editor. That makes the IDE look *very* >>> smart! I'm using PyCharm and more often than not I want to see the list of >>> methods and attributes of an object, but the editor won't show them to me >>> because it doesn't know the dynamic type of the variable whose value was >>> just returned by a function. That's irritating! Am I the only one who'd >>> like to see optional types introduced in Python? >> >> Personally I am skeptical, but there is an effort underway: >> >> http://www.mypy-lang.org/ >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2014-August/028742.html >> >> Nothing that your search engine of choice could not have found you... > > In fact, I did find it, but that didn't stop me from asking :) > > You can find something similar for almost any dynamic language out there. > If it isn't an official feature of the language, it's useless, IMHO. > > It seems that PyCharm supports some kind of type annotations: > http://www.jetbrains.com/pycharm/webhelp/using-docstrings-to-specify-types.html > Unfortunately, again, if almost no one uses them, they're not very useful. Even if it becomes official, which seems likely, it will still be optional -- hence, only useful if folks actually use it. ;) -- ~Ethan~
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
optional types Kiuhnm <gandalf23@mail.com> - 2014-10-29 09:17 -0700
Re: optional types Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2014-10-29 17:51 +0100
Re: optional types Kiuhnm <gandalf23@mail.com> - 2014-10-29 10:18 -0700
Re: optional types Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-30 04:25 +1100
Re: optional types Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2014-10-29 10:46 -0700
Re: optional types Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-30 05:03 +1100
Re: optional types Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-10-29 20:18 +0200
Re: optional types Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-30 05:43 +1100
Re: optional types Kiuhnm <gandalf23@mail.com> - 2014-10-29 12:03 -0700
Re: optional types Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-10-29 21:07 +0200
Re: optional types Kiuhnm <gandalf23@mail.com> - 2014-10-29 12:09 -0700
Re: optional types Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-29 19:22 +0000
Re: optional types Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-10-29 21:44 +0200
Re: optional types Kiuhnm <gandalf23@mail.com> - 2014-10-29 13:43 -0700
Re: optional types Kiuhnm <gandalf23@mail.com> - 2014-10-29 13:40 -0700
Re: optional types Nick Cash <nick.cash@npcinternational.com> - 2014-10-29 16:25 +0000
csiph-web